Group Think: A Sinister Snare For Elders and Congregations Alike

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Mike,

Good start. But I'm going to play the devil's advocate with you. How do you then interpret the verses that say things like "thinking the one thing," "being of one accord," "that you all agree with one another," and so forth? These are the verses the LSM/LC will use to defend what the article identifies as groupthink, and what I call going along with the crowd.

Let me start. I think such verses are telling us to more or less focus on what we can agree on-- instead of focusing on what we don't agree on--rather that telling us to totally drop those things.

What say you?

I would first say that you are probably onto something. My thoughts went a different way, but I do not necessarily disagree with you.

It is so difficult to say that Paul intended for everyone to absolutely agree on all doctrines when he did not really spend that much time discussing many of them. He spent most of his time talking about practical application of living the Christian life, not providing better sound bites for apologetics debates. He said to quit thinking you are better than someone else, or quit thinking that your freedom is a license to sin. It was not about deep theological topics, but the core of our faith and the life it was intended to create in and through us. When you read through many of those discussions, it is easy to hear Jesus’ words when he said that all of the law hinges upon loving God and loving others. That is more the content of Paul’s discussions than any particular agreement. It was less about agreeing and more about loving.

When we read “that you all agree with one another” why do we automatically think that means that we are to dig into the deepest things, argue a position, then have everyone line up behind that position? When I look at the things Paul spent his time discussing, it was not about whether you should or should not eat meat that might have been sacrificed to idols, but to take care of your brother who might think differently. It wasn’t about the method by which people were baptized, but was about the unifying facts that baptism gave to all who have partaken. It was not about which teachers were the best ones, but to quick bickering about them. It was not that you wear certain clothes and read the same books, but that they present a unified front to the world.

Being of one accord does not indicate abdication of reason coupled with absolute agreement, but rather a determination for unity despite potential differences. Does anyone think that everyone was absolutely clear concerning what to tell the Gentiles in Acts 15? Probably not, but the sense of how to proceed came out and all stood behind it despite any thoughts to the contrary. There is nothing that says that they had all agreed before the decision was reached. But it was what went out. And Paul never denied anyone the right to practice circumcision, or to eat or refrain from eating meat, or observe or not observe days. Instead, he pointed them to tolerance for those who took a different position in practice. He also put restraint upon those who were stronger in the faith to watch out for those who were weaker. To require adherence to one way is to ignore all those things and to trample on the weaknesses of others.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

Being of one accord does not indicate abdication of reason coupled with absolute agreement, but rather a determination for unity despite potential differences. Does anyone think that everyone was absolutely clear concerning what to tell the Gentiles in Acts 15? Probably not, but the sense of how to proceed came out and all stood behind it despite any thoughts to the contrary. There is nothing that says that they had all agreed before the decision was reached. But it was what went out. And Paul never denied anyone the right to practice circumcision, or to eat or refrain from eating meat, or observe or not observe days. Instead, he pointed them to tolerance for those who took a different position in practice. He also put restraint upon those who were stronger in the faith to watch out for those who were weaker. To require adherence to one way is to ignore all those things and to trample on the weaknesses of others.

Mike, one chapter of empasizing oneness is in Ephesians 4. In practice reason is abdicated in order to remain in one accord. Brothers are quaraintined just because "brother so and so said so". That is abidcating reason in order to remain one with the brothers. No proof or justification is required. This is not what Paul intended in his epistles. Remember all scripture is God-Breathed and profitable for teaching. A point Paul made in one of this epistles was not stumbling his brother. If a brother eats meat or deson't eat meat, don't make eating meat or not eating meat a point to be in one accord.

Terry